The Italian movie 'The Golden Door', by Emanuele Crialese, tells the story of Sicilian peasants leaving their homeland for America, at the beginning of the 20th century. It's very beautiful - I highly recommend.

At the beginning of the film there is a scene which particularly moved me: the three main characters are preparing their crossing. As shepherds they have always lived bare foot, wearing their simple mountain clothes. Knowing that they are about to leave for the New World, a man in the village takes them to a room containing wooden chests. Inside are leather shoes and sunday clothes, which have been carefully preserved after their owners passed away. The man proceeds to distribute a pair of shoes and proper garments to each man, so they can start their journey with adequate attire.

There was something very touching about seeing people put so much value into these items, because they were rare and costly. Seen from the point of view of a middle-class consumer of today, such care is surreal. Transmitting a pair of shoes. Keeping it for the next generation. Owning only one pair, and keeping them for Sundays.

How precious must the world's production seem, when seen through those eyes. When there is rarity, objects that are well done, materials that last, and few things to look at. This scene told a humbling story of respect for things, and at the same time of respect for people - I was imagining the shoemaker, the tailor who had made these in the first place, of how their work was being honored by this care.

Wishing there was more of that. Yeah that post was totally artisan-crafty-nostalgico.

furniture

Inbuilt furniture at Enfield Shaker village, New Hampshire

original photo by Walter Parenteau

Back to moving.

More and more I find the idea of carrying furniture around close to insane.
If you strip down pieces of furniture to absolutely vital ones: namely, perhaps your bed and some storage - do we really need to own them? At the scale of a city, does it make sense to be moving around thousands of similar looking bed frames, wardrobes, and bookshelves, like a huge swaping game which in the end consumes gas, human energy, and leads to the familiar left-behind casualties on the curbside?

Recently I've been mulling over possible alternatives. Among the first solutions: inbuilt furniture. One where architects and designers would participate in taking the load off the inhabitant's back, by making it a necessity to provide inbuilt storage.

The 'student dorm' model, improved. Of course it means accepting the idea of sharing furniture over time, but that's what we already do with buildings. A little clean up, and it's back on tracks for a new life. Wouldn't it be a fine system, where in theory you would only have to bring in your 'soft material' - linens, clothes, books, etc.?


Precedent:

SHAKER INBUILT FURNITURE 

A wonderful example of integrating furniture into the design of buildings. Among the most graceful features of this practice: 'The drawers graduate in height from top to bottom, a typical Shaker design feature that combines practicality with pleasing proportions - the larger drawers are a the bottom so that heavier contents are not precariously near the top.'

Storage cabinet in Hancock Shaker village, Massachusetts
photog by Daveybot

Another thrilling highlight: 'cleanliness - no dust could collect on top or underneath'.


Both quotes are from the wonderful book 'Shaker: Life, Work and Art' by June Sprigg and David Larkin, with photographs by Michael Freeman.

cuba

Visit of Cienfuegos, Cuba

photograph by Patrick Nouhailler

I was browsing through available data on ecological footprint - the previous article about overconsumption made me want to know more.

A type of graph that often pops up on the internet is the one below, showing, for each country, human development index vs. ecological footprint:

 graph by the Global Footprint Network

(they have great reports, by the way)

The Human Development Index is a single statistic which serves 'as a frame of reference for both social and economic development'. It combines 'indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income'.  

(source: Human Development Reports)

The Ecological Footprint represents 'the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to mitigate associated waste'.

(source: wikipedia) 

Looking at this graph, it is striking that the only country which consumes less than its share of the earth's biocapacity AND has reached significantly high human development is Cuba.

I know very little about Cuba, beyond the postcard pictures and the occasional political bits in the media. Regardless (but not disregarding) of what one may think of the Cuban regime, the fact that it is up there, alone, in the green window, makes me immensely curious about the details of its functionning.

I want to research and post more on this - meanwhile, if any of you have stories to share about Cuba's economy, things you've experienced yourselves there, feel free to tell in the comment section.

overconsumption

Yesterday there was an interesting article published in French newspaper Le Monde, titled
'The real threat on the future: overconsumption' (also available here - sorry, no English version).

I couldn't find a lot of information about its author ('Frédéric Julien, a political science PhD student at University of Ottawa, in residence at King's College Departmenf of Geography.') - but the contents are worth mentionning.

Julien's thesis is that society should fear overconsumption much more than overpopulation, as it is growing at a faster rate, and unlike demographic evolution, is showing no sign of being curbed any time soon: there are no 'growth control policies' equivalents to birth control policies.

If they are accurate, the following numbers are quite telling:
[note: 'ecological footprint' means the productive surface of soil and water necessary to sustain a lifestyle]

• 'between 1961 and 2007, North America (the United States and Canada) have seen their population grow by some 39%, whereas their ecological footprint has made a leap of %160'.

• 'as a result, in 2007 North America represented %5 of the world population, but %17 of its ecological footprint'.

I also like the phrase 'increase of revenue - i.e. 'permit to consume''.

patching post #1 : Woolfiller

Woolfiller® was invented in 2009 by Heleen Klopper, a Dutch designer working in Amsterdam.

photographs by Mandy Pieper

Woolfiller is a patching device for woolen thingies - 'jumpers, cardigans, jackets and carpets.'
It consists of
- very loose felt (any color you like)
- that you push through the weave by pricking it with a felting needle
- while a little foam pad underneath provides the right surface porosity to work on.

video by Pieter Wackers

The genius of Woolfiller® comes from
1. The brilliant observation that wool fibers bind to each other, if they are mechanically encouraged to do so
2. Apparently survives washing
3. The process requires no sewing skills. ANYBODY can do it, from children to clumsy men to grandmas. Truly democratic, and easy to pass on.

I love the simplicity of this project, the fact that it comes from somebody who tried to listen to the properties of a material, and derived a graceful solution from this understanding. AND that it brings patching into the present, in a fun and easy way.

All images and references are reproduced with the kind permission of Heleen Klopper.

patching

Starting a category of posts dedicated to the action of patching.

cropped photography from an original by Dorothea Lange

'Ex-slave and wife who live in a decaying plantation house. Greene County, Georgia' - 1937

PATCH, n.

1. A piece of cloth sewed on a garment to repair it.

2. A small piece of any thing used to repair a breach.

PATCH, v.t. To mend by sewing on a piece or pieces; as, to patch a coat.

Source: 1828 edition of the Webster dictionary

I think it's relevant to the theme of bare necessities.
Selective ownership + intensive use => wear and tear
=> [disposal (=> acquiring new stuff)] OR [repair.]

As the author of this blog I can only advocate for postponing the acquisition of new stuff until it's really, really necessary. Repair is something you have to at least try.

less stuff, more happiness

A TED talk by Graham Hill.

Got lots of things to say about it - good and bad -, will publish soon.

Am investigating his LifeEdited website as well, will be back with thoughts.

+

UPDATE

Opening remark: TED’s 6 minute talks are so frustratingly short they border on the ridicule – speakers can blurt out any kind of nonsense they want, and run away without having to elaborate. But they are also cool because they plant just enough of an idea in your head to start you thinking.

Criticism: I agree with the general intent of that talk (encouraging people to live with less things in less space), but its interpretation / implementation by GH leaves me more than perplexed.

How can you with a straight face tell people to ‘edit ruthlessly’,
then describe the brief for your ‘small’ 420 sq ft apartment as: ‘I wanted it all: home office; sit-down dinner for ten; room for guests; and all my kite-surfing gear. ’
Dude. What the heck did you edit out of your Soho yuppy lifestyle? The talking oven?
‘And, of course…my own movie theater’.
Oh, sorry. You were not done.

The final, completely refurbished apartment looks slick and clever, yes. However:

1. It is doing exactly the same thing as the stackable chairs, Russian-doll bowls, and magic digitization that makes ‘everything disappear’: finding a clean way to cram a lot of stuff into less space, i.e., the opposite of editing.
2. The big elephant in the room is the nasty question which designers do not want to hear: is it relevant today, especially within the framework of a ‘green’ discourse, to even think of designing anything from scratch?
As Christopher Guignon once said: 'sustainability must redefine itself as a tool for dynamic transition, not a tool for sustaining an existing modus operandi.' 

Which is exactly what GH doesn’t seem to have the guts to do.

The entire experience of the LifeEdited contest, while very interesting in terms of space optimization, seems to offer, as the main final deliverable, the design of a highly-customized apartment to sustain the lifestyle of a wealthy New Yorker, while easing up his environmental guilt through some ‘green’ patches.

To me some important questions haven’t surfaced: what does ‘simple life’ mean when societal pressure requires most of us to be connected through technological devices which we must more or less own? Do we really need to each have a fully equipped kitchen? What are daily utilities we could start sharing? Aren’t good plumbing and safe, natural materials more important than home-theaters? How can we be effectively coherent between what we preach and what we do?

emergency needs

This is a post I started a while ago, as Hurricane Irene was hitting the east coast of the United States.

Since the tsunami/nuclear accident in Japan, I have been thinking about how times of crisis suddenly make a population focus on bare necessities, and how some belongings suddenly shift value, becoming enormous advantages (ex: bottled water) or huge impediments (ex: high heels).
Suddenly the fact of being old / sick / living alone is more blatantly difficult than any other time, as having family and friends may define your chances of making it through.

For the sake of the exercise, here is a rough checklist (compiled from the internet) of things that turn out extremely valuable in such situations:

DAILY SUSTENANCE / FUNCTIONING
- drinking water (critics of plastic bottles: forget your fight just this once)
- clean water for washing and flushing
- non-perishable food (canned, dried)
- slow-perishable food not needing refrigeration (apples, carrots, green bananas)
- medicine
- first aid kits

BODY PROTECTION
- shoes that protect your feet from debris and allow you to run (sorry Jimmy Choo's)
- blankets and warm clothing

TECHNOLOGY
- filled batteries
- battery-powered radios
- flashlights
- cell-phones
- access to real-time, local information (tv or radio)
- a car filled with gas

RELATIONSHIPS
- having a plan with your family (know how to contact everyone you care for, have an out-of-state common friend to call if you are separated)
- have evacuation routes in mind (and good maps too I presume)
- have a place to evacuate in mind (friends are priceless)

KNOWLEDGE
- know how to drive
- know how to shut down utilities

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
- a well constructed home, in accordance to building code

PREPAREDNESS
- insurance policies (on your home, belongings, office)
- photographs of your belongings (the less you possess, the easier the photographing)
- protection from flying objects (the less you possess, the easier the protection)


I like the fact that these requirements are solid arguments for fighting against the production and selling of junk - be they objects, food, buildings. In these cases, junk will hinder your chances of survival.
Also, it points to the futility of A LOT of life-accessories we surround ourselves with every day, even if they are well-made.

Lastly, it scares me to think how easily it is to be unprepared, and NOT have these very necessary items at hand. All it takes is a bit of lazyness, and a set of priorities dictated by fashion rather than need.

sources:
The Weather Channel
Ready.gov
Answers.Askkids.com
The Ready Store
Virgin Islands Information
University of Louisiana
New York Times blog

paperbasket made of paper

Stumbled on this very smart object by Studio Verissimo, the firm of portuguese designers Cláudio Cardoso and Telma Veríssimo.

photograph by ricardo faria, 

used with the kind permission of Studio Verissimo

It's a paper basket woven from pages of newspaper.
Seems to be doing just what a paper basket should be doing: stand up straight, hold paper!
Most likely disposable and compostable at the end of its life.
What more does the people want, eh?

UPDATE
Japanese brand MUJI sells a similar paper basket made from pages of phonebooks, handwoven in the Philippines.

- I say: I want a how-to guide for weaving it myself - people could start making those at every street corner
- my better half says: 'why are we producing the big wasteful phone books in the first place?' - he has a point.

the haves and the have-Nots

Kenya-born, England-raised photographer James Mollison has created a series called Where Children Sleep: 'stories of diverse children around the world, told through portraits and pictures of their bedrooms.'

I find this work thought-provoking from many angles - social, political, etc., and in the context of this blog, a good representation of clashes between 'material cultures'. Not so much linked to the country (a lot of the extremes shown here probably have a replication everywhere you go), but rather linked to revenues, customs, and spending patterns.

Here are 2 bedroom photographs from the series, with the personal belongings of the children laid out in the space:

The bedroom of Kaya, a 4-year old girl in Tokyo, Japan

The bedroom of Ahkohxet, an 8-year old boy in the Brazilian part of the Amazon Rainforest.

- the first photo fascinates me because
1) the accumulation of objects in the room seems to overcome the life that can take place within it - more museum than bedroom, at least from that angle
2) light, furniture/flooring, and most of these objects are artificial (neon light, particle board, fake wood, hard & soft plastics, artificial fabrics & fur)
3) through sheer number, they overfulfill a need (hundreds of toys vs. the basic need to play / 20+ heavily decorated outfits vs. the basic need to be dressed).

- the second photo fascinates me because
1) the presence of raw materials is almost brutal (earth floor, clay & wood walls, reeds on the roof, etc.) + natural light
2) it seems we could trace each object back to a basic need (a backpack to carry things, a pair of shorts and underwears, blankets to be warm, a platform to sleep on, a rope to hold clothes...)

I wonder about the kind of society that creates the former - I feel that I belong to it, and that photograph is simply one of its most radical illustrations - where 'comfort' is created through the massive production of heavily designed items, relying heavily on the petro-chemical industry, taking up space and blurring our vision of necessary vs. superfluous. What kind of action/behavior could turn it around?

Even if I can never tell whether Ahkohxet is happier or not than Kaya, poorer or not in all the possible meanings of 'poverty', burdened by the same petrochemical industry but in more complex ways, I am attracted to the idea that anybody, regardless of their wealth, could make the choice of owning very few, but useful and therefore meaningful, things.

Thoughts from my friend Scott while this article was still in the works :'In addition to the obvious conclusions about material obsessions and waste, another way of looking at these is to ask "who has more?" in a broader context. Maybe the roles are reversed? Material possessions can isolate people. It would be interesting to see what each child's "outside" looks like, and what they experience in a typical day with family and neighbors.'

And from my friend Nick, who lives in the US: 'Ahkohxet's room looks like my bedroom when I was his age - drab drab drab :)'


Photographs published with the kind permission of James Mollison.
For those interested, the book Where Children Sleep is currently sold out, but will be reprinted later this year by Chris Boot.